Crown Prosecutors Code Review

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress is being made concerning the review of the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: On 24 November 1999 (Official Report, col. 105W) the Solicitor-General announced in another place that the Code for Crown Prosecutors would be reviewed to take account of the Human Rights Act. The aim of the review is to ensure that the Code for Crown Prosecutors is relevant, clear and accessible, properly considers the rights and interests of victims and reflects the exercise of the statutory functions of Crown Prosecutors. The review will take into account legislative changes since 1994, particularly the Human Rights Act, changes to the structure of the CPS and procedural changes to the criminal justice system.
	The review team has now been established and will be writing to organisations and individuals with an interest in the code asking for comments. The review team also invites views from the general public, who may write to their local Chief Crown Prosecutors or write to or e-mail CPS Headquarters. Information on the code and the review can be found on the CPS website at www.cps.gov.uk.
	It is important that the code supports the CPS's commitment to excellence of decision-making, improving victims' and witnesses' experiences of the criminal justice system and pursuing a partnership approach within the criminal justice system while maintaining its independence in decisions on casework.
	The Solicitor-General and I welcome this review and will be taking a close interest both in its progress and any major issues that may arise.

Freedom of Information Bill Code of Practice

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the draft code of practice to be made under Clause 44 of the Freedom of Information Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has today placed a copy of a working draft of the code of practice in the Library and a copy will be placed on the Home Office website.
	Clause 44 of the Freedom of Information Bill requires the Secretary of State to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of practice setting out practices which he considers public authorities should follow in discharge of their duties in relation to Part I of the Bill. It specifies particular matters which must be included in the code such as the assistance that should be given to applicants and procedures for dealing with complaints.
	The matters to be included in the code are administrative ones that are an important part of good practice. They form an important part of the overall scheme for dealing with requests for information.

Reserve Forces: Call Out for Balkans and Iraq Region

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether reservists will continue to be called out to support military operations in the Balkans and the region of Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: A new call-out order has been made under Section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 which allows the call out of members of the reserve forces to continue so that they may support operations in Yugoslavia and in the region of Iraq. The call-out order has effect until 31 March 2001. Since NATO operations commenced in the former Yugoslavia, the reserve forces have historically provided some 10 per cent of the total UK manpower in theatre. As in previous years, only volunteers for these duties will be called out.

Education Action Zones

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which education action zones have been established; what were their starting dates; what is the name of the lead body in each case; and which schools are participating in each zone.

Lord Bach: There are now 73 education action zones across England. They are listed below with start dates.
	Round 1: September 1998
	Barnsley; Lambeth; Newham; Blackburn with Darwin; Leicester; Grimsby; Croydon; Middlesbrough; Weston; Hereford; Newcastle; Salford and Trafford
	Round 1: January 1999
	East Basildon; Wigan; Halifax; Kingston Upon Hull; Norfolk; Plymouth; Nottingham; Sheffield; South Tyneside; Southwark; Brighton; Birmingham Aston and Nechalls; Birmingham Kitts Green
	Round 2: September 1999
	Greenwich; Hamilton Oxford
	Round 2: December 1999
	East Manchester; Preston; Wythenshawe; NE Derbyshire Coalfields; Southend; Dudley; Kent-Somerset Virtual; Slough; Hackney; N Islington; Telford and Wrekin; Hastings and St. Leonards; Wednesbury
	Round 2: January 2000
	Ashington; East Cleveland; Sunderland; Barrow; Peterlee; Breightmet and Tonge; Wakefield; Bedford; Easington and Seaham; Corby; Bridgewater; Speke Garston; South Bradford; Gloucester; Clacton and Harwich; Stoke on Trent; Wolverhampton; Leigh Park; North Gillingham; Camborne Pool and Redruth; Dingle Granby and Toxteth; Withernsea; Epicentre/Ellesmere Port; Coventry; Downham and Bellingham
	Round 2: April 2000
	North Stockton; SE Sheffield; NW Shropshire; Derby North East; Bristol; Great Yarmouth; South East England Virtual
	Round 2: May 2000
	Westminster
	Each zone is led by an action forum as set out in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
	Nineteen action forums are chaired by business representatives. The chair of Wythenshawe EAZ forum is the Chief Executive of Manchester Airport, the initial lead in the zone's application.
	In round 2 almost half of the bids were initiated by headteachers and schools who all sought to involve a range of partners, including parents, who still play an active part on each forum. North East Derbyshire, Preston and Slough forums are all chaired by headteachers.
	A list of the participating schools has been placed in the Libraries.

Education Action Zones

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide a breakdown of funds and materials-in-kind, listed separately, which have been allocated to each education action zone by:
	(a) the Government;
	(b) other public bodies; and
	(c) the private sector.

Lord Bach: Pledged sponsorship figures covering the three operational years for the 73 approved EAZs continue to increase and currently stand at £36 million (£9.2 million in cash and £27·5 million in kind). DfEE grant (including early years) totalled £9,551,724 for the financial year 1998-99 and £23,766,379 for the financial year 1999-2000.
	Full information on these areas for all zones is contained in their audited annual reports, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries. To date, accounts for eight zones have been placed in the Libraries covering the financial year 1998-99. These relate to zones which began in September 1998 and January 1999.

CJD: DNA Samples

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are prepared to provide independent researchers with authenticated samples of new-variant CJD DNA; and, if so, what procedures such a researcher must go through, and what criteria they must satisfy, before such samples will be provided.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government have recently agreed over £1 million to set up a biological resource centre at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control to supply validated infectious material for the study of both classical and variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease. It is intended that this centre will also supply blood and other appropriate tissues for research. All these research materials will be obtained in full accordance with the Human Tissue Act 1961.
	Any researchers are at liberty to apply for validated infectious material but must be bona fide establishments adequately resourced to conduct the work and their proposed projects must be subject to the usual peer review mechanisms. Applications should be made in writing to the Director of the Centre (Dr. Philip Minor).

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Research

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What research they are funding into (a) the normal function of prions; (b) early diagnosis of prion diseases; and (c) rogue conformer therapy; and what is the annual cost to the Government of such research; and
	Whether they will host a central prion disease research website to carry material such as detailed and current survey information, planned and ongoing experiments (including daily lab book entries) and meeting transcripts to expedite the pace of discovery.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: All transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) research projects, current and completed, and funded by public money, are already listed on the Medical Research Council website at http://www.mrc.ac.uk/tse-2c.htm. The site provides a breakdown of the areas of research being covered, including those identified in the Question, as well as the annual costs. The total government funding on TSE research for 1999-2000 is likely to be in excess of £26 million.
	The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) routinely considers all relevant research findings from the work on TSEs, whether funded by the UK Government or not, including any research topics considered by the committee's sub-groups. SEAC produces a public summary of each of its meetings. These are placed on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Department of Health websites.
	The Government believe that in the TSE research area publication of the full detail of ongoing experiments such as entries into lab books would be counterproductive. The provision of such invalidated information outside its context and without suitable peer review would run contrary to accepted scientific procedures, encourage misinterpretation, add to costs and impede rather than facilitate constructive research. It would also discourage researchers from bidding for future projects.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Abortion Guidelines

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the impartiality of the review committee on the recent Royal College of Gynaecology guidelines The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion is affected by the presence of seven representatives from organisations affiliated to or otherwise associated with the abortion reform lobby group Voice of Choice; and
	Whether the impartiality of the guideline group on the recent Royal College of Gynaecology guidelines The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion is affected by the presence of three representatives affiliated to or otherwise associated with the abortion reform lobby group Voice of Choice.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The impartiality of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists National evidence-based clinical guideline on the care of women requesting induced abortion was ensured by its production method. The guideline was prepared using an accepted methodology based upon a thorough and systematic literature search. The recommendations were graded according to the level of evidence, using a scheme recommended by the National Health Service Executive. There was also formal peer review of the document and appraisal by the Health Care Evaluation Unit at St George's Hospital, which has been commissioned by the NHS Executive to appraise such guidelines.

Professor Collinge's Proposed Study: Involvement of Ethics Committee

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why an ethics committee has become involved in Professor Collinge's proposed prospective study of tonsil samples; and whether the involvement of this committee will contribute to the speedy determination of whether, when and how abnormal prions in tonsils led on to clinical disease

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Ethics committees exist to review any proposed research projects involving human subjects with the aim of ensuring that the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of all actual or potential research participants are safeguarded. Such committees will consider the potential impact of any such research on the subjects both in the short term and, where relevant, in the long term. The Government believe that the goals of research, however important or time critical, should not be permitted to override the health, well-being and care of research participants.
	As researchers make headway and results in due course start to emerge from this study, they will at the same time need careful interpretation before any conclusions are published. Findings from the study will have to be subject to the normal processes of validation and peer review by the relevant scientific experts, including the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

CJD: Tests to Demonstrate Infection

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will permit insurance companies to require that candidates for life insurance be tested for incipient new-variant CJD.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Insurance companies would be unable to introduce such a step, as no acceptable test currently exists for the demonstration of infection before the onset of clinical symptoms.

Smoking and Food Preparation

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 20 March (WA 12), which agencies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for the enforcement of the smoking prohibition where food is prepared for public consumption; and how many prosecutions have been brought in the last five years in each of the four areas.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Local authorities are responsible for enforcing food hygiene legislation prohibiting from smoking persons working in food preparation areas of food businesses. Information on the number of prosecutions in this respect is not held centrally. However, prosecution is not usually the initial response to contraventions of food hygiene legislation.

NHS Specialised Services: Annual Reports

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 29 February (WA 65-6), when the advice on the structure and contents of the annual reports on the new regional specialised commissioning arrangements will be finalised.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The advice on the structure and content of regions' annual reports on commissioning specialised services has now been finalised and issued to regions. Copies have been placed in the Library.

NHS Specialised Services: Annual Reports

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 29 February (WA 65-6), what steps they are taking to ensure that their advice on the structure and contents of the annual reports on the new regional specialised commissioning arrangements are followed so that performance can be seen to be measured consistently across the National Health Service.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Regional directors are accountable for regional commissioning specialised arrangements and as such are responsible for ensuring that their region's annual report on commissioning specialised services conforms with advice given on the structure and content of annual reports.

NHS Specialised Services: Annual Reports

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 29 February (WA 65-6), whether they will circulate their advice on the structure and contents of the annual reports on the new regional specialised commissioning arrangements and the annual report of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group to relevant user organisations and disability charities.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Regions have been asked to produce annual reports on the regional specialised commissioning arrangements. Individual regions' annual reports will be in the public domain and will be made available to local bodies including user organisations. Each region will be inviting comments on its annual report and as such there will be an opportunity for user organisations to comment on the structure and content of future annual reports.

Jobseeker's Allowance: Disallowed and Sanctioned Claimants

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the findings of the qualitative research on disallowed and sanctioned claimants for jobseeker's allowance, mentioned by Baroness Hollis of Heigham on 17 March (HL Deb, col. 1917); and
	What information is contained in the research on disallowed and sanctioned claimants for jobseeker's allowance mentioned by Baroness Hollis of Heigham on 17 March (HL Deb, col. 1917) on the means of subsistance available to claimants so disallowed or sanctioned.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The research to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, refers has been published in a report entitled Jobseeker's Allowance Evaluation: Qualitative Research on Disallowed and Sanctioned Claimants. Phase Two: After Jobseeker's Allowance. Among other issues, the research explores clients' strategies for, and experiences of, coping financially following a disallowance or sanction. These strategies include claiming JSA hardship payments, and/or reliance upon support from informal sources.
	The report was published on 16 November 1998 as DfEE Research Report No. 86, and a copy of the report was placed in the House of Lords Library on this date.

Reduced Benefit Directions for Parents with Care

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will set out in a table the number of reduced benefit directions currently in force against parents with care, the amount of the reduction, the duration of those directions and the total amount of benefit not paid.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The information is in the table.
	
		Details of Reduced Benefit Directions (RBD) at quarter ending (QE) November 1999
		
			 Quarter RBD was imposed Number of whole quarters RBD in place to date Estimated duration of RBD (weeks) Number of cases on 5% scan of Income Support Computer System Number of cases (grossed up) Average weekly amount of benefit not paid (£) Estimated total benefit not paid up to QE Nov 99 (£,000) 
			 Nov 99 0 6.5 139 2,780 20.20 365.0 
			 Aug 99 1 19.5 111 2,220 20.25 876.6 
			 May 99 2 32.5 277 5,540 20.47 3,685.4 
			 Feb 99 3 45.5 31 620 20.06 566.0 
			 Nov 98 4 58.5 35 700 19.94 816.5 
			 Aug 98 5 71.5 34 680 20.09 977.0 
			 May 98 6 84.5 13 260 20.56 451.7 
			 Feb 98 7 97.5 11 220 20.56 441.0 
			 Nov 97 8 110.5 11 220 20.56 499.8 
			 Aug 97 9 123.5 10 200 20.56 507.8 
			 May 97 10 136.5 9 180 20.55 505.0 
			 Feb 97 11 149.5 4 80 20.56 245.9 
			 All cases with RBD in place at Nov 99  35.6 685 13,700 20.32 9,937.7 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures produced using ASD 5 per cent scan of Income Support Computer System, which is run at the end of Feb, May, Aug and Nov each year. Grossed figures are, therefore, subject to a degree of sampling error.
	2. Scan does not hold start date when RBD imposed for each case, so taken to be mid-point of quarter.
	3. Analysis may miss a small number of cases where RBD in place for only a very short period between the end of successive quarters.
	4. Average amount includes cases where the full RBD cannot be deducted.

Reduced Benefit Directions for Parents with Care

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to ensure that the decision to impose a reduced benefit direction upon a parent with care is considered quickly as a matter of course under the revision of supersession procedure.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Child Support Agency treats applications for revision or supersession of a reduced benefit direction as a matter of urgency.

Reduced Benefit Directions for Parents with Care

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In how many cases, where a reduced benefit direction was imposed on a parent with care, was the decision to impose such a penalty subject to the revision or supersession procedure under the system of decision-making and appeals before being considered by an appeal tribunal; and what this number of cases represents as a percentage.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Since June 1999, all appeals cases are subject to the decision-making and appeals procedures. In the period June 1999 to date there have been 310 reduced benefit direction appeals. In 25 of these cases the decision to impose a reduced benefit direction was revised and consequently these cases did not go to tribunal.

Reduced Benefit Directions for Parents with Care

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of (a) parents with care who successfully appealed against a reduced benefit direction and (b) parents with care who unsuccessfully appealed against a reduced benefit direction had their cases subject to the revision or supersession procedure under the system of decision-making and appeals.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Since June 1999, when the decision-making and appeals procedures were introduced, a total of 166 appeals against reduced benefit directions have been referred to the Appeals Service. In each case, as part of the preparation of the appeal documents, the question of whether the decision should be revised was considered and rejected. Of the 166 appeals, decisions have been made in 39 cases. Ten were upheld and 29 were dismissed. In addition to the number of appeals referred, 36 parents with care withdrew their appeals following revision of their cases.

Reduced Benefit Directions for Parents with Care

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the mean average period during which parents with care who successfully appealed against the impostion of a reduced benefit were subject to such a direction while appealing under (a) the decision-making and appeals system; (b) the former system; and
	What was (a) the shortest period between the imposition of a reduced benefit direction on a parent with care and the decision by the appeal body that the direction has been imposed wrongly and (b) the longest such period under (i) the system of decision-making and appeals and (ii) the former system.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	The table shows the shortest and longest periods taken for the CSA Central Appeals Unit to clear a reduced benefit direction appeal since the introduction of decision-making and appeal procedures in June 1999.
	
		
			 Case type Shortest period Longest period 
			 Appeals submissions written(1) 6 days 231 days 
			 Appeals withdrawn(2) 15 days 231 days 
			 Lapsed appeals(3) 21 days 232 days 
		
	
	Notes:
	(1)Cases referred by the Central Appeals Unit to the Appeals Service.
	(2)Cases where appeals have been withdrawn by the parent with care before the case is referred to the Appeals Service.
	(3)Cases where the original decision has been revised before the case is referred to the Appeals Service.

Pensioners: Minimum Income Guarantee Increase

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the estimated cost to public funds of the increase in the minimum income guarantee to pensioners announced in this year's budget

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The cost of uprating the minimum income guarantee by earnings over the Rossi Index is estimated to be £310 million in 2000/01. This includes the additional cost to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Human Rights Convention: Compatibility of Legislation

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is unable to make a statement under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that in his view the provisions of the Local Government Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights; and
	In what respects they consider the Local Government Bill, in its current form, to be incompatible with particular European Convention Human Rights; and
	Whether, in view of the opinion obtained by Justice from David Pannick QC and Helen Mountfield, dated 17 February, they consider that Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 breaches the rights of parents, pupils and teachers in maintained schools under Articles 8,10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention.

Lord Whitty: The Government are aware of the legal opinion obtained by Justice from David Pannick QC and Helen Mountfield. We believe that there are considerable doubts whether Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (otherwise known as Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988) is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Clause 91 of the Local Government Bill amends, but also reaffirms, the provisions of Section 2A. By extension, this amendment makes it doubtful whether the Bill is compatible with the ECHR.
	The Government have already said that they intend to remove Clause 91 of the Bill and in its place provide for the repeal of Section 2A of the 1986 Act. In our view, the Bill will then be compatible with the ECHR.

Education Committees

Baroness Harris of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, for the purposes of calculating the appropriate political balance of education committees, and in particular when calculating the size of a controlling majority on such committees, it is customary to include the voting representatives of the Churches.

Lord Whitty: It is my understanding that this is customary. These are matters for local authorities to decide, while having regard to the requirements of local government legislation.

Affordable Housing

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they define "affordable" in "affordable housing".

Lord Whitty: For the purposes of planning policy, affordable housing is defined in Circular 6/98 as "low cost market and subsidised housing (irrespective of tenure, ownership--whether exclusive or shared--or financial arrangements) that are available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market".

Affordable Housing

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What impact the recent revision of planning policy guidance has on the provision of affordable housing in rural areas.

Lord Whitty: Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG3) states that a community's needs for a mix of housing types, including affordable housing, is a material planning consideration which local planning authorities should take into account. PPG3 reaffirms that affordable housing may be provided on suitable sites in accordance with criteria set out in Circular 6/98 which address the specific circumstances of small rural settlements. This general approach may be augmented by a rural "exception" policy to enable provision of affordable housing on sites that would not normally be released for development. Housing provided on such sites should be retained in perpetuity to meet local needs.

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether all strains of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) are faithfully propagated between different species of genotypes of the same species or that such passage can result in modifications to a TSE.

Baroness Hayman: We know from experiments that certain biological properties of TSE agents can change on repeated passage in mice. TSE propagation between and within different species is affected by at least one gene which codes for the prion protein. Other factors which have not yet been identified may also be involved.

Scrapie and BSE

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether research at the Institute for Animal Health has suggested that some cases diagnosed as scrapie in sheep may in fact be BSE.

Baroness Hayman: The only known cases of BSE in sheep have been the result of experimental challenge with BSE infected cattle brain. Although research at the Institute for Animal Health is ongoing, scientists have not so far found evidence to indicate that cases diagnosed as scrapie were BSE in sheep.

Farmers: Retirement

Lord Carlile of Berriew: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce measures to facilitate the retirement of farmers from farms which are to continue as farming units.

Baroness Hayman: Neither the England Rural Development Plan nor the Northern Ireland Rural Development Plan include an early retirement scheme for farmers under the provisions of the Rural Development Regulation (EC No 1257/1999). These plans are subject to the approval of the European Commission and to mid-term reviews. Decisions on which measures to use were taken in the light of extensive consultation and an economic appraisal.
	Implementation of the Rural Development Regulation in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations.